Re: LMT and DMT

"tingl" <one4all_at_all4one.not> wrote in message news:tUE%9.6058$6P2.678346_at_newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hi Richard,
>
> I am not sure what you meant by too simplistic. My intention was to make
it
> less simplistic
> than just "LMT is better.". Anyway there is a tradeoff between ease of
> maintenance and
> flexibility. LMT and DMT each has pros and cons. Neither is better than
the
> other in all
> situations.

If you accept that

1. LMTs enforce standard storage conditions and so prevent fragmentation
2. LMTs reduce (sometimes drastically) IO and locking due to eliminating transactions against UET$ and FET$.
3. LMTs do not suffer even with large numbers of extents.

I find it difficult to envisage any circumstance when a DMT would be preferred. I have seen people object to all of the above (though rarely 2).

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK